On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:58:11 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:29:16 +0200
> luca abeni <luca.ab...@unitn.it> wrote:
>
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:09:52 +0200
> > Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bris...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > +static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se,
> > > > struct dl_rq *dl_rq) +{
> > > > + u64 se_bw = dl_se->dl_bw;
> > > > +
> > > > + dl_rq->running_bw += se_bw;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > why not...
> > >
> > > static *inline*
> > > void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq
> > > *dl_rq) {
> > > dl_rq->running_bw += dl_se->dl_bw;
> > > }
> > >
> > > am I missing something?
> >
> > I do not know... Maybe I am the one missing something :)
> > I assumed that the compiler is smart enough to inline the function
> > (and to avoid creating a local variable on the stack), but if there
> > is agreement I can change the function in this way.
> >
> >
>
> I agree with Daniel, especially since I don't usually trust the
> compiler. And the added variable is more of a distraction as it
> doesn't seem to have any real purpose.
Ok, then; I'll fix this in the next round of patches.
Thanks,
Luca
